ORDER NO. 95-1063

ENTERED OCT 4, 1995

THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC COPY

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

OF OREGON

UM 712

DISPOSITION: APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

On June 23, 1995, the Commission issued Order No. 95-627 which completed the Commission’s investigation of Section 111 of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), Pub. L. 102-486.

On August 30, 1995, the Utility Reform Project (URP) filed an application for reconsideration. PUC staff filed a reply opposing reconsideration on September 12, 1995.

THE APPLICATION

URP’s application alleges that Order No. 95-627 is erroneous, incomplete, and unlawful. URP’s primary contention appears to be that the order does not consider the impact on small businesses of EPAct Section 111 standards on integrated resource planning and demand-side management. URP further claims that the standards and policies adopted by the Commission establish "an exceedingly anticompetitive system for implementing DSM in Oregon . . . ."

OPINION

URP’s claims are not persuasive. The EPAct provides that if a state implements a standard established in EPAct relating to integrated resource planning or demand-side management, the state must then:

(A) consider the impact implementation of such standard would have on small businesses engaged . . . in demand-side management measures; and

(B) implement such standards so as to assure that utility actions would not provide such utilities with unfair competitive advantages over such small businesses. 16 USCS Section 2621(c)(3).

It is clear that Order No. 95-627 does not adopt either the EPAct Section 111 standard on integrated resource planning or the standard on demand-side management. The ordering section of Order No. 95-627 is explicit:

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Commission has considered the EPAct Section 111 standards in the context of the purposes of PURPA Title I and determined that issues of integrated resource planning, demand-side management, and energy efficiency investments in power supply are best addressed through the Commission’s current regulatory framework;

 

2. The Commission’s adoption of the EPAct Section 111 standards is unnecessary and inappropriate; and

 

3. The investigation is closed.

 

The body of the order explains why the Commission chose not to adopt the federal standards. It explains that Oregon has already adopted its own policies relating to integrated resource planning and demand-side management, how those standards differ from the federal standards, and why the Commission considers adoption of the federal standards inappropriate. As the federal standards were not adopted, the federal requirement for considering the impact that implementation of such standards would have on small businesses is irrelevant. As the order states on page 6:

Because the Commission declines to adopt the EPAct section 111 standards on integrated resource planning and demand-side management, there is no need for the Commission to consider the impact that the implementation of such standards would have upon small businesses as part of this proceeding.

 

URP appears to contend that the Commission’s order in UM 564, Order No. 95-800, adopts a demand-side management policy which is the same as the federal standard. However, the policy enunciated there and in Order No. 92-1673 (UM 409) provides for penalties and incentives which make it different from the federal standard.

URP’s contention that the order does not adequately discuss URP’s arguments is also without basis. Order No. 95-627 provides an explanation of why the Commission decides to retain its own standards and not adopt the federal standards. There was no necessity for the order to reargue the bases for the Commission’s policies relating to integrated resource planning and demand-side management. Those policies were developed through proceedings completed some time ago and set out in orders cited in Order No.

95-627. The contentions made by URP are dealt with adequately by the order.

Our rule relating to reconsideration, OAR 860-14-095 (1), provides that the Commission will grant an application for reconsideration if the application establishes one or more of the following grounds:

(a) New evidence which is essential to the decision and which was unavailable and not reasonably discoverable prior to the issuance of the order;

(b) A change in the law or agency policy since the date the order was issued, relating to a matter essential to the decision:

(c) An error of law or fact in the order which is essential to the decision; or

(d) Good cause for further examination of a matter essential to the decision.

URP has established none of these bases and the application should therefore be denied.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the application for reconsideration of Order No. 95-627 by the Utility Reform Project is denied.

Made, entered, and effective ________________________. 

A party may request rehearing or reconsideration of this order pursuant to ORS 756.561. A request for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed with the Commission within 60 days of the date of service of this order. The request must comply with OAR 860-14-095. A copy of any such request must also be served on each party to the proceeding as provided by OAR 860-13-070. A party may appeal this order to a court pursuant to

ORS 756.580.